ATS PRODUCTS, INC. v. EUROX CO., 3:13-cv-00086-MMD-VPC. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20130703c33
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2013
Summary: ORDER (Plf.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad—dkt. no. 6) MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff ATS Products, Inc.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad (dkt. no 6). Defendant Eurox Co., Ltd. resides in Taiwan. Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service and, according to Plaintiff, does not permit service of process by mail. Plaintiff moves this Court for the
Summary: ORDER (Plf.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad—dkt. no. 6) MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff ATS Products, Inc.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad (dkt. no 6). Defendant Eurox Co., Ltd. resides in Taiwan. Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service and, according to Plaintiff, does not permit service of process by mail. Plaintiff moves this Court for the ..
More
ORDER
(Plf.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad—dkt. no. 6)
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff ATS Products, Inc.'s Motion for Issuance of Letter of Request to Effectuate Service of Process Abroad (dkt. no 6).
Defendant Eurox Co., Ltd. resides in Taiwan. Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service and, according to Plaintiff, does not permit service of process by mail. Plaintiff moves this Court for the issuance of a letter rogatory to serve Defendant with the Summons and Complaint. Plaintiff does not, however, sufficiently demonstrate that Taiwan recognizes no other procedure for serving process on parties in relation to civil actions pending in other countries.
In addition, Plaintiff attaches a deficient draft letter rogatory (dkt. no 6-4) in support of its Motion. The Court will not accept a draft letter that does not comply with the requirements of a proper letter rogatory.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of a Letter (dkt. no. 6) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
